Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 69 Discovery Letter Brief; 71 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
LOGTALE, LTD.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS [DOCKET NOS. 69,
71]

IKOR, INC. ET AL,

15

No. C-11-05452 CW (DMR)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Logtale, Ltd. (“Logtale”) submitted a letter brief in which it moved for sanctions

18

against Defendants IKOR, Inc. (IKOR), Dr. James Canton, and Dr. Ross Tye for discovery

19

violations. [Docket No. 69.] Defendants submitted a response to Logtale’s motion. [Docket No.

20

71.] The court conducted a hearing on the matter on October 31, 2013. This order summarizes the

21

rulings made by the court on the record during the hearing.

22

1.

Production of Financial & Transfer of Technology Documents: Defendants shall produce

23

to Plaintiff copies of all backup financial documents, as well as all documents regarding the

24

transfer of technology from IKOR to Plaintiff, by no later than November 14, 2013.

25

2.

Adequacy of Defendants’ Document Search & Production: Plaintiff argues that

26

Defendants’ search for documents has been inadequate and that they have not produced all

27

responsive documents. Plaintiff requests the imposition of various sanctions. In response,

28

1

Defendants submitted a declaration by Defendant Canton regarding his search for responsive

2

documents, which he conducted in consultation with a technology expert, William Moulton.

3

Plaintiff has not highlighted any specific documents that it believes are missing, but points to

4

the small size of the production and the fact that the recently produced documents all appear

5

to have been forwarded from Canton on August 15, 2013. Plaintiff further notes that all of

6

the produced emails were sent between Logtale persons or entities, and asserts that it is not

7

believable that Defendants did not correspond with anyone outside regarding the agreement

8

at issue in this case. The court finds that Plaintiff has not established that the production is

9

materially incomplete. However, given Defendants’ record in this case of late and
inadequate discovery responses, insufficient document collection efforts, and the overall

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

paucity of documents produced by Defendants to date, the court orders Defendants to

12

provide additional information regarding their search(es) for documents in the form of

13

detailed, sworn declarations by Moulton and Defendant Canton. Defendants shall file a

14

detailed, sworn declaration by Moulton setting forth the exact instructions he gave to

15

Defendant Canton and any other individuals to perform a search of electronic files for

16

responsive documents, including without limitation the names of custodians whose files were

17

to be searched; the search terms and parameters to be used; the search methods and means,

18

and which sources were to be searched. Defendant Canton’s declaration shall set forth in

19

detail how he and any other individuals carried out Moulton’s search instructions, including

20

without limitation exactly what search was performed (including search terms, parameters,

21

methods and means), when the search or searches were performed and from which sources

22

(including devices, systems, and custodians), who carried out the search(es), who supervised

23

the search(es), who verified the results and performed quality control, and what quality

24

control measures were taken. Defendant Canton’s declaration shall also specify how the

25

documents were collected, whether they were produced in native format, and if not, how

26

exactly they were processed and produced. In addition, Defendant Canton shall set forth

27

detailed information about each Defendants’ specific document and electronic information

28

retention policies and whether the policies were followed during the pendency of this

2

1

litigation, whether any litigation hold was implemented (including the scope and date of the

2

hold) and describe in detail any intentional or unintentional information destruction during

3

this litigation. Defendants shall file both declarations by no later than November 14, 2013.

4

3.

Privilege Log: At the hearing, defense counsel represented that other than communications

5

between Defendants and their counsel that post-date the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint,

6

Defendants have only withheld portions of one document on the basis of privilege. By no

7

later than 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2013, Defendants shall email to Plaintiff a privilege

8

log listing that document.

S

onna
DONNA M. RYUD
Judge

13
14

M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

ER

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

A

H

15

R NIA

Dated: October 31, 2013

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

LI

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

FO

UNIT
ED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

United States District Court

10

RT
U
O

9

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C